@99occupyBoycott For Owning Equally #Boycott4OwningEq: Starting in boycotting groups to become co-owners. The customers (being the 99%), can become co-owners in media and market networks being the medium between the producers owners (1%) and their customers (99%)!

No Weapon Industry Profit!Make Peace by signing this petition: "I think it is ok to support those who would not pay tax as long as their government would not fully (100%) tax all weapon production profit or eliminate any such profit."

Developing the platform: For agpl developers on github developing the comcom-platforms, starting in Uid - an Identification device for democratic applications providing a unique identification per each user/owner.

Organization's RegisteringFrom here we create the market for comcomized units. We begin here in estimating this market, by asking for the contact of each organization, the number of its peers and its value. This page is designed mainly for organizers.

GovComComGovComCom - Make the bailouts or privatizations working for the people! The ordinary people can takeover central banks and banks and start demand before any privatization or nationalisation to first have the list of the ordinary people, which are claimed by the government to be benefited form such act , and then to demand that those ordinary people would become equal shareholders in the institutes planned to be bailed or sold out!

peers' homesArtist activist or student using editing and 24/7 steaming/transmitting room and bringing their young spirit in an authentic trend to a developing area. Authentic why? Just because they are all groups of peer owners!

Customers' Equal OwnershipAs any effective group of customers must be diverse and big, it cannot fit to the structure of cooperative, since cooperative is only suitable to small and homogenic groups, as the power of minorities or individuals in cooperative, is inversely proportional to its size and as its homogeneity is inversely proportional to the benefit of its members also to exit it.
» Terms & Reasons1) Tradability, 2) The d,3) Peers' autonomy, 4) Coherent Layering, 5) Flexibility of the d and 6) Recursive nature of the contract. AS d * i = c * n , where d (as in Decentralization ) is the ratio of the portion held by all the peer owners, i is the number of Issues shares, c is the Count of all peer owners and n is the number of shares per each peer owner.
»» e.g. for Contract
»» Learn/TeachWorkshops/Assemblies/Interviewes: We spread comcomism on the ground and online and in parallel
» Mailing lists
»» Contact/Chat/Twitt
»» Neighborhoods of The People
»»» TakeShare ItThe people's humane and effective media - the media of the people by the people and for the people. Clone your "buildup" site to create or join your networks, contents and events » Page categories . The people's humane and effective media - the media of the people by the people and for the people. What it is about? Spreading anyone's events in info points from one calendar connecting small communities maintaining the points. What it's for? Practicing The Freedom Of Assemblies around the info points publishing the events of/by anyone. How? As the events are flushed from one calendar, the calendar is moderated by the ("talking") communities maintaining the info points, where the calendar with its history is able to be cloned for further forking and where specific common pages are able to be included.

this is for the user adding content and activity to this site. please ask for and let other now what you would like to have here and if you have any question about how to edit your page etc, please let us help you, thanks.

I come to know about your site from my friend and when i came here i come to know that a lot of information waiting for me…..
curt
Nike Air Royal Mid VT on www. nicetick.com/nike-air-royal-mid-vt-blue-molded-leather-club-purple.html

Who are obama's brother/sisters over which he is the kipper,? The bankers? Well if they are such wizard who could make 12 times more for each dollar, why shouldn't they be GovComComized now?
please let obama know about comcom!
It seems that he is now surrounded by such officers who call transparency the act of telling you what they want to tell or sell but without the act of letting you know by letting you ask your questions.
see more here: http://iswith.wikidot.com/govcomcom

Well - for answering this question, I have to give you a little backround regarding the structure of the german language. There exist three different articles, one for each male, female and neutral, in both cases, determined as well as undetermined ('the' and 'a'). That is how each mentioning of a person is identified as either male or female. This distinction is continued throughout all the grammar, for pronouns, adjectives etc.

In addition, the female form of any specification of a person (such as e.g. shareholder) is expressed by the suffix 'in', so that a female shareholder would be a shareholderin, which for plural then reaches the form of shareholderinnen.

Now the solutions in use keep grammatical correctness and usually function by ecplicit mentioning of both, the male and the female form, applied in one of several ways, such as e.g.: "shareholder and shareholderin" or "shareholder/in" or "shareholderIn" etc. Of course then, according to the grammar, this duplification has to be continued throughout all the sentence.

The solution, which the translator applied, acts differently. Intentionally it breaks the rules of grammar insofar, that consequently it uses the (male) basic form of the specification (e.g. shareholder), but combined with consequently using the female article and the grammatical female form of the sentence. That is, we talk about a she and her shares, but we do that using the usual and common and simple (and male) form of the person's specification (shareholder).

The advantage is to avoid mutations, such as e.g. Each(m/f) shareholder/in holds his/her shares until his/her membership extends and he/she decides to become a(m/f) member/in., where the concentration is constantly trapped in the slashes. Also, but this is my very subjective feeling, the suffix in always lets me feel like some kind of handicapped person, i am not only an electrician, i am an insisted electricianin, i must get this tail to anything, just to exist. So I found, that happily I can be called an electrician, as long as I am referred to as a she - which is exactly, what I am doing in my way of translation.

The slight irritation, I feel, can be easily overcome, where soon you get used to this form. And how do you (german speaker) feel it?

as those of you, who know german, french, italian, espanol, hebrew, arabic etc etc etc may be aware to, the usual form to express, that male and female persons are talked about, is to just use the male form. I don't like it. Me, as a german speaker, am constantly trying to be creative in always new approaches regarding that effect. It is always a 'dance on the wire' between the readability and the flow of the writing at one hand, and the -in my opinion- necessary explicit mentioning of females in some way at the other hand.

In german, there are some -more or less sophisticate- approaches in use by people trying to be pc, but all of which seem in one or the other way poor, miserable, stiff and/or not fun.

Others claim, well, of course we mean also females, what is the fuss about…

Sure. Just, if you are (incidently) a male person, and you symphatize with this claim, just for fun try a little exercise: Replace the male form with the female form in any arbitrary text, read it, and find out if 'of course' you feel meant, too. I am curious about the result, you're welcome to share it at this place…

And you are welcome to share your opinion as well as any other thoughts, ideas, suggestions, critics etc about the subject, considering the german or any other concerned language (english doesn't seem to be so much affected, is that right?)

Looking forward to your feedback and to a developing discussion, which, in the best case, hopefully may even lead to a better solution…

e.g. why shareholder can not be both Common shareholder and Private shareholder (Point 3), why d must be static (Point 2)?

Because these 6 points are for achieving an outstanding standard by which full transparency can be easily get by knowing the d alone, hence the distinction between the 2 portion must be fully clear. This standard must be simple (one factor - the d), if the purpose is decentralization of the market, which is the case for the concept of the ComCom.

When constantly dedicating (1/d-d)*v of all common shareholders
to be held by another common company of which d=1,
for baying private shares at their minimal price reflected from said v,
then the common shareholders can protect the value of v, when baying them by the latter company at the minimal price, if it is to be agreed between the shareholder.

<\ ok so let's say Alice is a client and Bob is a shareholder
what happens?
/> ok, but not, lets say Alice is private shareholder and Bob is client being common shareholder
<\ ok
/> you need to define what kind of shareholder, more then if the one is client or shareholder
<\ so Bob pays 10 once plus 24 per month?
/> y
so, we need also to define d, lets say d=0.8, that is to say from the total and divednt
bob with the other such common would get only 80%
and Alice with other such private would get 20%
now we can calculate the "membership"
lets say each such as bob pay 24 in cycle
<\ ok
/> also lets say that we have 100 common
and that the company pay for salary etc some expenses , lets say 1000.
<\ ok
/> so we have from membership 2400, minus 1000, left over 1400 to share in dividend, if we do not want to invest that for the future

<\ who's doing the work?
/> those who get payed and/or the members, as in the web 2.0 strategies
<\ ok let's get the whole picture
let's say we make databases for companies
/> ok
<\ we have 100 coders
we have 1000 customers
/> ok
you can do it in 2 ways:
the question is who are we, are we private shareholders? and do we need such, for investment
<\ ok start over
/> so lets say we need some investment we would put d=0.8, for real investor to be private shareholders, and we the coders would be 100 common share holders, we would pay our holding by coding
<\ let's say we make a web browser with smellovision
/> what is smellovision?
<\ you can smell people over the internet
joke
/> fine
so lets define numbers here
say we want 1m investment, we are 100 coder having already the concept
we expect market of ?
… ok lets say market of 100m
so
the privet investors would get , from the market of 100m only 20m whereas each of the common share holder would get 800,000
but that is if we did not expanses,
<\ ok
now
/> now let say the market was here defined per year
<\ what happens with the 10 and 24?
if I don't code I pay 24 a month
but if I code I don't pay anything?
/> moment,
it, how to use the d or the distinction can be played in different ways
in the 1st e.g. we talked about some thing like web 2.0 thing and in the 2nd about hard core developers
you can play it more wide if you would allow 3rd party services as part of the structure
<\ but where is the 10 and the 24?
/> in the 2nd e.g. the 10 is the activity of the common shareholder being the coders, and the 24 is payed by the companies to which we sell the smelling machine
<\ ok so if I code I don't pay and if I don't code I pay?
If I'm the common shareholder?
/> that is in the 2nd, the client is fully distinguished from the company whereas in 1st the client is part of building the company
if the company get income from non common share holder, the company is free from them, those are the clients of the smelling machine
<\ Ok example:
100 people have shares, 50 code, 50 pay 10
/> define common and privet please
also the d
<\ all are common
and .8
how does the share price go up or down?
/> yes it can be, but i do not know if this what you mean
it means that those who pay 10 and those who code are EQUAL
<\ ok
fair enough
/> now it may hold with the payment of membership
<\ membership = cost of service?
/> but if that is so, why not having the coder in the private
membership cost = cost of service+ benfite
<\ benefits?
like
what?
I think I get it
/> of the shareholders , like dividend and holding Intellectual Properties
<\ ok
/> 8-|:P:D

<\ Alice is 100 coders, Bob is 10m buyers, Charlie is 1m investor
/> so
<\ something is odd about it
/> 1st question do we want the buyers to be common shareholders
ok look
<\ let's start with no
buyer is just customer
make it simple then more complex
/> so this is easy have the investor in private and the coder in common, and you are done
<\ how much code = 1 share?
Alice is common and Charlie is private
<\ right
1000 lines of code, 2 months of code?
20 hours per month of maintenance of code?
/> so 0.008 get each coder and0.2 get Charlie
<\ if coder stops coding?
/> from the income, which did not say, did we define the income?
he get!!!
this is so much important in relation to open source
<\ I know
but it has to be reasonable or no one invest as private
/> he gets, he might get less, because other coder gut in where he gut out of coding, but not from common shareholding, that is to say we would have more common share holders
<\ How about this:
/> it is so reasonable, since no gut my invention, because i am not going to code all my life
?
<\ I have an idea
if coder stops coding, he becomes private shareholder
from his coding but no longer has control of code
or something
/> let me say this:
1. no one can be both common and private shareholder
<\ right has to exchange
/> 2. the values might feet to what you suggest but not always
<\ charter of company would state that
there is a way to do this very simple
/> can exchange but not be both, btw you can have common company in one portion and be persnal privte shareholder in the other
so no problem, it depended on the value
it might hold, but the problem is of being scalable
e.g. we begin in d=0.8 and 1M private and 100 coders
being common
now the company gut huge
its total is 1b
no , sorry YOU ARE RIGHT
it holds
because the common would be exchanging for the right proportion
but
<\ someone who pays 10 gets 800,000, someone who pays 1million gets 200,000 something wrong there
/> to summarize, such regulation, we need to granty that the private holder would agree because that one going to loose
it not hold, sorry again
<\ there is a way to do this but it's going to have to be carefully done
/> because the common would evacuate place for other common , but the private would not agree to pay it
<\ ok let's try a different way:
/> look take yourself in the private
as private you are going to pay from your share for nothing to the common one
this cause fraction!!!
<\ yup
after 6 years investor makes profit 200,000 while coder buys a hotel
/> just to add for this case, all the common would benfite from that exachnge
>?<hotel<?!>
<\ small hotel
/> no problem , go on
<\ ok
here's the way to do:
the code is made of modules
/> y?
<\ so we can know the value of the code
/> …
<\ so we know how to exchange
/> but why should we!?
<\ never mind my mistake
/> we could add new common constatly, if the value of the code is such which would alow to build on it
then we say we have 100 coder to BEGIN with , the would make such amount of code, which genrate income
that income sould continue ONLY if more coder would com in
so the income would increse , it would be added
<\ ok
/> now to this flow we add more doprs, more coders
<\ how about this: no common or private
/> more income distinuted between more coders
all are common
<\ code = .8 and money = .2
make it simple that way
or better
/> code is common money is private, but what is the moeny income or out come?
<\ investor gets 20million coder get 800,000
/> so that is what we talked before?
<\ only coder is common there is no money common
because 800,000/10 = 80,000x profit, 20m/1m = 20x profit
investor makes more but spends less
er but common spends less
/> i did not gut the different, please try to use the (my) definition we already established

Hi, only this page shows its comments but this page as any other page has its thread in the forum of this site and have its bottom, see the discuss(number of comments) and click it for to go to the thread for to find the relevant page see this

Any page you can also rate and in any case: Let the others learn and earn from your learning, please watch the threads ask, replay, post etc.

You can also create pages in this site and after contacting they might be included in this font page.

All about ComCom and/or about how to realize it (how to ComCom it)
is in our need, we must let it out!

The ComCom Social (or the Social Networking for individuals and their ComComs of which provider is in itself a ComCom) lets its members be organized more on a base of common ownership and responsibility and less on a base of donation or looking for sponsor/investor but still while being in a constant start-up's mood, because any where you could ask for donation, for rewarding your preferred clients and/or for cooperation of various kind, you could also be asking for investment of c-holders in the assets1 of that project/business/campaign/cause. ComCom-Social is for you

if you are one who makes a change in our reality, but which also care for being protected from hostile taking over her/his work, hence if you are

if you think to make your (social) networking, such that it would work for you because you are a shareholder of its provider

and/or

if you (like obama) wish to stop big-cooperations from being able to become too big to fall , because as such they are too risky to the economy and because they are still growing while sucking the tax payer money and doing that not only in USA but all over the globe and because such cooperation can/could grow only by one building block, which is the pattern of first takeover for handing it over to the richer ones, while packing it together with other alike,

ComCom Social is the next big thing in the social networking market, why?

Because it lets its members producing unique content, such members as the activists, artists, developers and/or researchers, together named here the power producers, be also the power owners (i.e. the shareholders) of the company owning the networking channeling their works (think of it like this: How many of us are members using social networkings and how many of us own it? Since only the owners could benefit from its increasing worth due to the increase of such use!)

and so, ComCom Social lets You (still) own what You share in it;

Because it lets such businesses (as ComCom Social) to grow from their members naturally sharing its ownership, while still being attractive for investors, rather than still being exhausted from attempting to attract ads, which their member and/or their guests might somewhat suffer (and/or even be annoyed from the spying and spamming attached with such ads).

ComCom are Community like companies, but still able to attract investors and without giving away control;

Because its structure fits to close-source, open-source, the Web2.0 AND the social-networkings strategies while providing an answer for making money from your contribution in the long tail, if you are an artist, a developer, a researcher, an activist and/or a social/spiritual warrior.

All what it takes is some friends-in-your-networking sharing small amount of resources for opening and initiating your-and-their company to be used for your common needs and one formula: The $t*d=v*c$, which determines the structure of such company allowing the new type of owners being the Common shareholders.

1st_You wroteon December 6, 2008 at 1:38am
Please let others know and ask about ComCom, by simply asking under this topic, so that also the others would know about it. Here we would try to explain the "what and why" for that thing named comcom, so that "all laymen and laywomen can understand it without having to own lots of knowledge of economics".

This was staring as a comment on my wall-to-wall:

3rd_You at 11:03am December 5
1st_You, I am not ignoring you It;s just I don't have a comment. I read what you have said about it & I read it again and I don't quite get it so I don't have a comment hun, sorry but I should have said so and for that I am sorry. I apologize to you for not explaining to you :o. Sorry 1st_You. xo

1st_You at 9:18pm December 5
3rd_You thanks.
thanks for reading it, please just put the link for that it.

Here It is 3 points, please let me know for each point if you understand /agree-with it:

1. ComCom is normal company, except of the fact it has in itself a fixed portion for equal ownership for many as desired with the other other portion for non equal ownership.

2. Any… Read More company which is ComCom in its activity and in interaction with it makes better distribution of wealth, just because it has the fixed portion for equal ownership.

3. The problems we face are because of the gap between the rich and the poor, that is the bad distribution of wealth, which can be solved by having more ComCom in the market, since such rich could never takeover the whole of any such ComCom.

Then in private emailing it continued like this:
1st_You December 5 at 9:34pm

please look for the comment of 3rd_you in my wall about my cause, i hope to convince better for my cause

2nd_You December 5 at 10:54pm

I'll do that… :)
Dear 1st_You, I had a bit the same feeling as 3rd_you. I didn't quite understand how ComCom really works and what is its meaning. In what respect it deviates from socialist, communist and cooperative ideologies and organizations? You tell that the point is not collective but individually shared ownership (did I understand it right?). It all is very complicated to me. I remember there has been several years ago here in Finland efforts to build new kind of banks working on similar basis as your ideal ComCom system is supposed to work. But they had drained out.

I suggest that you formulate your theses more clearly and simply so that all laymen and laywomen can understand them without having to own lots of knowledge of economics. I am a humanist who knows nothing of economical stuff (I can pay my bills fortunately). But your idea sounds good and worth develop more to get more attention from folks.

All the best my dear friend! I hope you got more power from my critiques. I have no meaning to depress you!!! Never, you are a lovable young man!!!
Created with Gift Packs
Share

1st_You Today at 12:03am

Dear 2nd_You thanks,

I wish to just cut and past this email to my wall and make wall to wall comment on my wall please let's do it that way.

You are right i do need to make it simpler and clearer.
The way to do it is by such reaction as we now make.
I want to make this reaction open so it can become clear also for others and also for that they would see the reaction and ask for more.
For such open reaction i made the group and cause in facebook .

Now, let me try to make it simple.
Here we are in facebook users which get all which we get but not own facebook. Also facebook has its businesses dealing with adds and also taking some of our privacy.
So, what if the users of face book are c-holder in facebook?
let's say that the d in this case is d=0.5, it means that all the users together have 50% of facebook and that we could make profit from and take decision about facebook as shareholder in facebook.

Iin this case would we make more of and more for facebook?
also in this case, no one could takeover facebook, so we could really invest more in it.

Now imagine that facebook also has its competitor, say google my space etc, wouldn't facebook be better home for its user attracting more users (also since we from here -the c-holder users) are calling them (just because we are owner of facebook) if it is comcom of which d=0.5?

ok, just let me know how you would want this conversation to be public in facebook.

All the best
Be and Have
Good Time Good Luck

2nd_You Today at 12:24am

OK, I got it now. I am afraid however that there will be inner competition between the FB holders - we humans are just like that. Or what would you say all the applications where we are asked to put OUR FRIENDS IN ORDER from less best to the super best, from hot to the hottest etc. What if we are going to evaluate each other according to how much we each are doing for the hypothetical FB? I have never worked in a group which is wholly and totally democratic, in which all members do exactly the same share of the whole pot.

You see I am a little skeptical. - You may make my comments public if you think so. And remember, I do support you. There is a very good point in the general idea and ideology. (I personally don't want to get profit from something I'm doing for fun - like being in Facebook. LOL)

Have a wonderful evening dear friend!

1st_You Today at 12:45am

Thanks again,
i am posting it for letting the others to enjoy it as i do.

As for the fear from power of the mass, well, i could not help that, but i can say democracy is based on equal decision and in comcom you also get out by selling your share if you can sell it in the price u asked for, and that is not as in any state.

As for inner competition between the c-holders "unlike the private owners , the c-holders can not benefit one from the failure of the other, hence between common owners a kind of brotherhood is formed so that I can only be "My Brother’s/Sister’s Keeper".
(from http://iswith.wikidot.com/)

As for any practical problem to solve including fbi or naughty and so all those yes or no and yes and no, well :) funny you touch me in my sensitive point. You see i devlopet techonlogy which i do not want fbi to use and i came to comcomize any thing because i believe that mass of owners could do much better in protecting their property, e.g. also by their political power.

ok, i am now putting all this in the wall
Thanks, really really thanks
Be and Have Good Time Good Luck

2nd_You Today at 1:08am

Oh yes, I forgot the slogan I can only be my brother's or sister's keeper. That's a great idea. I think you might stress it more.

I see you are a great idealist and that is wonderful. People become so easy cynical and skeptical in front of the big problems we all have. We need people like you, strong and convinced but warm hearted and loving men and women. Heehoo!!!!!

Post #3
You wroteon December 6, 2008 at 3:47am
just one thing, this comcom thing is not about me, it is, as you heard before, about you, ok you and me, it is about we, but, well even that is not enough it is also about them, we need to let them know, you know, do not we :) ?